My AmazonReview of "The Reasonable Woman," allegedly by Wendy McElroy

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

Is there some way for me to keep Ted Keer from posting on this thread? I started this in my "corner" for a very serious purpose, and I don't want some giggling goon posting nonsense.

Thanks,

Gh

I think since this is your corner you can edit anybody's post on one of your threads in your corner. Is there an edit function on Ted's posts you can use?

--Brant

Edited January 15, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

And we see another common delusion of libertarians and Objectivists, the notion that ability in philosophizing trumps the law. Rand herself knew better than to act as her own lawyer.

Ted,

Ayn Rand knew better than to act as her own lawyer. But that didn't stop her employing the threat of a meritless lawsuit (one that her lawyer knew was meritless, even if she didn't) as a bullying tactic, or instructing her lawyer to do likewise.

Today, Leonard Peikoff carries on that unfortunate tradition.

Robert Campbell

PS. Having been sued for defamation by an academic who misrepresented his obscure foreign degree to obtain employment from a university—because I said he had misrepresented his obscure foreign degree—I will have to beg your pardon for supposing that, under the present-day American legal system, the law of defamation remains on the books to gratify bullies and pathological liars and enrich their lawyers.

[Brant Gaede]

Free legal advice can be worthless for sure. Get thee to a lawyer go!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I think he's saying you are trying to extort property from Wendy. I must say that might be a bill collector trying to get a client's money back by threatening to report you to a credit agency. If Ted can hold on to this he might put all the collection agencies out of business.

--Brant

Does Ted think at all? That's news to me.

Yes, I wanted money from Wendy. That FOR book was intended to my most ambitious commercial venture, and might have been very successful, if written correctly. But Wendy used my first rough draft -- which consisted of verbatim transcripts from my FOR classes -- to plagiarize. She fucked up the whole book. I delayed so long with the FOR ms because I knew it needed a lot of work. But Wendy wasn't nearly as picky. In some cases she plagiarized offhand remarks by me that were rather silly in retrospect.

Wendy's plagiarism probably cost me at least $30.000. So why wouldn't I want money from her?. I think I initially asked for $10.000, or something like that. That would have been a real bargain for her.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

And we see another common delusion of libertarians and Objectivists, the notion that ability in philosophizing trumps the law. Rand herself knew better than to act as her own lawyer.

Ted,

Ayn Rand knew better than to act as her own lawyer. But that didn't stop her employing the threat of a meritless lawsuit (one that her lawyer knew was meritless, even if she didn't) as a bullying tactic, or instructing her lawyer to do likewise.

Today, Leonard Peikoff carries on that unfortunate tradition.

Robert Campbell

PS. Having been sued for defamation by an academic who misrepresented his obscure foreign degree to obtain employment from a university—because I said he had misrepresented his obscure foreign degree—I will have to beg your pardon for supposing that, under the present-day American legal system, the law of defamation remains on the books to gratify bullies and pathological liars and enrich their lawyers.

Note that I didn't go there. The fact that Rand and others may misuse tools is not at issue. I suppose the analogy would be, should Michael Jackson have performed all those disfiguring surgeries himself, or was he wise to leave it to the professionals?

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Brant Gaede]

I think he's saying you are trying to extort property from Wendy. I must say that might be a bill collector trying to get a client's money back by threatening to report you to a credit agency. If Ted can hold on to this he might put all the collection agencies out of business.

--Brant

Does Ted think at all? That's news to me.

Yes, I wanted money from Wendy. That FOR book was intended to my most ambitious commercial venture, and might have been very successful, if written correctly. But Wendy used my first rough draft -- which consisted of verbatim transcripts from my FOR classes -- to plagiarize. She fucked up the whole book. I delayed so long with the FOR ms because I knew it needed a lot of work. But Wendy wasn't nearly as picky. In some cases she plagiarized offhand remarks by me that were rather silly in retrospect.

Wendy's plagiarism probably cost me at least $30.000. So why wouldn't I want money from her?. I think I initially asked for $10.000, or something like that. That would have been a real bargain for her.

Ghs

I do think since this is your corner you can stop Ted with your edit function. I don't have my own corner so I can't say for sure how it's done, but Stephen B. has done it in his.

As for the "extortion," he's trying to ride half a horse. It's like shooting someone in self defense having it called "murder."

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

Wendy is very frightened, and she should be. If we don't resolve this quickly, she will never be able to give another lecture or attend another conference without people whispering, snickering, or talking behind her back. This has already happened numerous times since 1998, but this time the material will be far more thorough and far more widely distributed.

Extortion

<table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="HeaderTable"><tbody><tr><td id="MainTitle" nowrap="" style="font-size: 10pt; ">

</td><td valign="top" width="100%" nowrap="" style="font-size: 10pt; padding-top: 6pt; ">

</td><td id="Timer" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: right; width: 1px; padding-top: 6pt; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 6pt; vertical-align: top; "> </td></tr></tbody></table><table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="ContentTable"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="100%" style="font-size: 10pt; ">The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Elements of Offense

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury.

It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule.

The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

http://legal-diction...y.com/extortion

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ted Keer

[George H. Smith]

Wendy is very frightened, and she should be. If we don't resolve this quickly, she will never be able to give another lecture or attend another conference without people whispering, snickering, or talking behind her back. This has already happened numerous times since 1998, but this time the material will be far more thorough and far more widely distributed.

Extortion

<table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="HeaderTable"><tbody><tr><td id="MainTitle" nowrap="" style="font-size: 10pt; ">

</td><td valign="top" width="100%" nowrap="" style="font-size: 10pt; padding-top: 6pt; ">

</td><td id="Timer" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: right; width: 1px; padding-top: 6pt; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 6pt; vertical-align: top; "> </td></tr></tbody></table><table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="ContentTable"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="100%" style="font-size: 10pt; ">The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Elements of Offense

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury.

It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule.

The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

http://legal-diction...y.com/extortion

And your point is what, exactly? That poor Wendy is frightened that I will tell how she plagiarized seven years of my work? If so, good. She should be.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I just found this missive from 1998.

I am making no changes in these original missives. I am not correcting typos, indentations, etc.

This is a preliminary draft. Please do not post until I provide a more complete version.

Following is a preliminary sample of parallel passages between THE REASONABLE WOMAN and two articles I published in the high-school debate journal, “The LD/Extemp Monthly.” Please do not circulate this yet, until I complete the list and until I am able to run a careful check between the manuscript of my articles (from which I took these passages) and their published version. I don’t recall that any changes were made between my manuscripts as submitted and the published versions, but I want to make sure and avoid the possibility of even minor mistakes.

What follows is just a fraction of what will eventually be the final version of this list of plagiarized passages from my PUBLISHED articles.

GHS

NOTE: I have used the marks <> to indicate italicized passages in TRW.

Smith: “The two basic components of a definition are as follows:

DEFINIENDUM: The word or concept being defined. In ‘man is a rational animal,’ the term ‘man’ is the definiendum.”

McElroy, p. 200: “The two basic components of a definition are:

<Definiendum>: The word or concept being defined. In the definition, ‘woman is a rational animal,’ the term ‘woman’ is the definiendum.”

Smith, cont.: DEFINIENS: The defining part of the definition. In ‘man is a rational animal,” the term ‘rational animal’ is the definiens.”

McElroy, p. 200: Identical to the above, except “Definiens” is in italics, and “woman” is substituted for “man.”

Smith: “A triangle is a plane figure having three straight sides.

‘plane figure’ = the genus

‘having three straight sides’ = the differentia

‘triangle’ = a species of the genus ‘plane figure’”

McElroy, p. 201: Identical to the above.

Smith: “1. Definitions should not be too broad. For example, the definition of a circle as: ‘a figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point’ is too broad, It includes the arc of the circle and other spheres. Thus, we should differentiate more. ‘A circle is a closed, plane figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point.’ This definition excludes arcs and spheres, and refers exclusively to circles.”

McElroy, pp. 201-2: “1. <Definitions should not be too broad>….[C]onsider the definition of a circle….: ‘a figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point’ is too broad because it includes the severed arc of the circle. Thus, another and more specific X,Y,Z is required. ‘A circle is a closed, plane figure, all of whose points are equidistant from a given point.’ This definition excludes arcs and other spheres, referring exclusively to circles.”

Smith: “2. Definitions should not be too narrow. They should not exclude some instances of the definiendum. Thus, ‘A thief is a person who steals money; is too narrow. What about someone who steals a car? The definition excludes certain instances of the word ‘thief.’”

McElroy, p. 202: “2. <Definitions should not be too narrow.> They should not exclude some instances of the word being defined, the definiendum. For example, the definition ‘Woman is the animal that gives birth to human beings’ is too narrow since some women are childless. The definition excludes certain instances of the word ‘woman.’”

Smith: “Otherwise stated: A definition should apply to ALL possible cases of the definiendum, and ONLY to those cases. If it does not apply to ALL instances, then it is too narrow.”

McElroy, p. 202: “Otherwise stated: A definition must apply to <all> possible cases of the definiendum. If it does not apply to <all> instances, then it is too narrow.”

Smith: “3. A definition should state the essential characteristic(s) of the definiendum. By ‘essential’ is mean the characteristic(s} which best explains the greatest number of the other characteristics of the definiendum.”

McElroy, p. 202: “3. <A definition should state the essential characteristics of the definiendum>: that is, it should state the characteristics that best explains any other unique characteristics of ‘woman.’”

Smith: “But man’s ability to build computers does not, in itself, explain his ability to build high-rises, bridges or cars. Man’s rational capacity does explain this. Thus, ‘rational’ is a more essential characteristic and a better differentia.”

McElroy, p. 202: “But woman’s ability to laugh or to build computers does not, in itself, explain her ability to paint a picture, or drive a car, or cook a gourmet meal. Thus, ‘rational’ is a more essential characteristic and a better differentia.”

Smith: “A definition should not be circular. A circular definition is one which makes use of the very word being defined. Thus, ‘a carpenter is a craftsman who practices carpentry’ is circular. Only if you know a form of the word ‘carpenter’ in the first place will the definition make sense to you.”

McElroy,p. 202: <A definition should not be circular.> A circular definition is one that makes use of the very word being defined. Thus, ‘a carpenter is a craftsman who practices carpentry’ is circular. Only if you have an understanding of the word ‘carpenter’ in the first place will that supposed definition make sense to you.”

Smith: “Definitions should not be obscure….Avoid jargon and specialized language. The purpose of a definition is to give you access to the meaning of a word, not to obscure it.”

McElroy: <Definitions should not be obscure>…..Avoid jargon and specialized language. The purpose of a definition is to give you access to the meaning of a word, not to obscure it.”

AND SO IT GOES, FOR EIGHT CONSECUTIVE PAGES IN MCELROY’S TRW.

Remember: Wendy here plagiarized from articles I had PUBLISHED 12 years earlier. Those article are the ones available online to which I provided the link earlier.

Again, PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN MY NAME, AND IN MY NAME ONLY. No disputes about unpublished drafts and who really wrote what. This is classic plagiarism, so simple that even Ted might be able to understand.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

For Brant, and any others who do not understand the distinction, the threat to sue is not extortion precisely because it is the promise to resort to the law and its strictures to obtain justice, rather than to extra-legal means.

The analogy in criminal law to extortion is gangsterism, feud and vigilantism - precisely what anarchists offer as their alternative to the state.

I am not a lawyer, but I find the naive armchair legalizing among anarchists a source of unending amazement.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ted Keer

[kiaer.ts]

Remember: Wendy here plagiarized from articles I had PUBLISHED 12 years earlier. Those article are the ones available online to which I provided the link earlier.

Again, PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN MY NAME, AND IN MY NAME ONLY. No disputes about unpublished drafts and who really wrote what. This is classic plagiarism, so simple that even Ted might be able to understand.

Calm, down, housewife. I have not contested your underlying charges, about which I have not sufficient evidence to hold an opinion, but about your means of addressing said charges. Even if they be true, they are not a rational justification for exposing your own self to litigation and for making demands which you have no legal means of enforcing.

I do think your anarchism and your methodology here go hand in hand, so forgive me seeing this as a teachable moment.

And, for what it's worth, it has been my experience that you don't cajole an apology out of a lady by implying she likes to give blow jobs promiscuously.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ted Keer

[George H. Smith]

I am not writing this stuff for your amusement.

Yes, I suspected this was inadvertent on your part.

Nevertheless, you, and not I, are the one who has chosen to open himself up to public ridicule and possible countersuit.

I happen to think my counsel, however contemptuous, has been of more value than all the sympathy here combined.

Get thee to a lawfirm.

It it interesting to learn that you have no respect for moral principles whatsoever. I will keep my distance.

Btw, has anyone ever told you that you have the emotional depth of an eggplant?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Remember: Wendy here plagiarized from articles I had PUBLISHED 12 years earlier. Those article are the ones available online to which I provided the link earlier.

Again, PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN MY NAME, AND IN MY NAME ONLY. No disputes about unpublished drafts and who really wrote what. This is classic plagiarism, so simple that even Ted might be able to understand.

Calm, down, housewife. I have not contested your underlying charges, about which I have not sufficient evidence to hold an opinion....

You are not even reading any of these parallel passages, are you? Line after line of material that Wendy plagiarized from my published articles, and you don't have "sufficient evidence to hold an opinion." But you seem have sufficient evidence for making comments about which you know zilch.

I'm not trying to cajole Wendy into anything. I wouldn't accept her apology now, even if she offered it. Nor will I accept any other kind of offer. Wendy McElroy is toast.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I do think your anarchism and your methodology here go hand in hand....

You are absolutely correct. Unlike you, I don't cast my moral principles aside whenever they prove inconvenient for me.

And, for what it's worth, it has been my experience that you don't cajole an apology out of a lady by implying she likes to give blow jobs promiscuously.

Look, I hadn't planned to say any more about Wendy's Hobby, because I thought my first reference was sufficient to explain everything else that needs explaining. But if you would like to embarrass Wendy further by making comments about her hobby, then be my guest. I have no problem with discussing it further. As I said, it was common knowledge in libertarian circles at the time. It is difficult to practice one's hobby on hundreds of people and still keep it a secret. Word is bound to get around. How do you think Wendy and I first got together? I am extremely fond of women who practice Wendy's Hobby, and, believe it or not, I usually have a very high regard for them. I am not being sarcastic in the least.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

Remember: Wendy here plagiarized from articles I had PUBLISHED 12 years earlier. Those article are the ones available online to which I provided the link earlier.

Again, PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN MY NAME, AND IN MY NAME ONLY. No disputes about unpublished drafts and who really wrote what. This is classic plagiarism, so simple that even Ted might be able to understand.

Calm, down, housewife. I have not contested your underlying charges, about which I have not sufficient evidence to hold an opinion....

You are not even reading any of these parallel passages, are you? Line after line of material that Wendy plagiarized from my published articles, and you don't have "sufficient evidence to hold an opinion." But you seem have sufficient evidence for making comments about which you know zilch.

I'm not trying to cajole Wendy into anything. I wouldn't accept her apology now, even if she offered it. Nor will I accept any other kind of offer. Wendy McElroy is toast.

Ghs

Yes, George, your word on an internet forum is not sworn evidence provided in court, and I am not about to cast aspersions on one of your former lovers based on that sort of evidence. The proper place for this is either in private or in court, and I find your trying to line up innocent third parties who have no interest in the case and no access to the evidence to be immoral and an imposition. See below.

[kiaer.ts]

On Passing Judgment

Ayn Rand famously criticized Jesus' dictum "Judge not, lest ye be judged," responding that one must always judge and be prepared to be judged. This was a policy to which she strictly adhered in regard to her personal relations with others. There is no need here to describe in detail the many all-or-nothing breaks she had with people, often very close friends, from Isabel Paterson to Barabara and Nathaniel Branden and beyond. This policy of breaking with people has continued with certain of Rand's followers, such as Leonard Peikoff. The public necessity of repudiating people irrevocably, which is common in Islam, is a policy shared by some third generation Objectivists who were never part of Rand's inner circle. This tendency within Objectivism has led to innumerable splits and schisms. It is the subject of millions of words of hypertext. It is a source of scorn and ridicule of the Objectivist movement by outside observers and "ex-Objectivists." Is this policy, which seems so destructive, a necessary precaution or a tragic mistake?

Objectivism excoriates moral skepticism. Those who refuse, on principle, to make moral judgments, are refusing on principle to support the innocent or to condemn the guilty even when there is sufficient evidence to distinguish the two. But there is a deeper question, what sorts of guilt and innocence are there among people, and are we to treat all "guilty" parties the same? Suppose one person is guilty of murder, and another is guilty of lying about a love affair? Are we to treat such forms of guilt as equivalent so far as the necessity of passing judgment? The answer is no, because we must distinguish in human affairs between relationships which are purely voluntary, and relationships based upon force. To treat passing judgment as an absolute is to fail to make an essential distinction. In human relations where force is involved, which fall under the broad purview of the branch of philosophy called politics, passing moral and legal judgment under the proper circumstances is a vital necessity. But in voluntary personal relationships where no force is involved, which is dealt with under the branch of philosophy called etiquette, the propriety of passing judgment depends on a person's personal involvement in a situation, not upon some need for all to sit in judgment of all.

Objectivism holds that morality is of vital importance to the individual alone, regardless of whether the interests of other people are involved. If a man trapped on a desert island wishes to survive, it is immoral for him to evade the nature of his situation, and to expect wishes or passivity as opposed to thought and action to further his life. Objectivism also has a detailed political philosophy dealing with human rights, which can only be violated by others who use force. So, Objectivism deals theoretically with personal morality. And it deals theoretically with interpersonal morality where force is involved. But what of interpersonal morality where force isnot involved? How is an Objectivist to treat others who are not politicians, criminals, or enemies during war time? What are the proper principles of an Objectivist etiquette?

When dealing with politicians, criminals, and enemies in war, the necessity of personally passing relevant judgments is unavoidable. In so far as a person poses a credible threat to your rights, you must judge him and act accordingly for the circumstances. Who poses a threat to your rights? Any politician who exercises authority over you can violate your rights. In a republic, therefore, you must exercise due diligence in evaluating and voting for any politicians whose jurisdiction includes your self. You must also oppose, in the proper manner, non-elected officials who misuse their authority over you, and officials in other jurisdictions who overstep their authority in a way that threatens your rights. Likewise, you must be aware of and judge credible threats to your rights from foreign powers, and exercise your influence with your representatives to take proper action. Your life and livelihood are physically involved in these cases. Further, you must form opinions of political policies, and at the minimum raise your voice against those of influence who advocate policies which involve the initiation of force not in self defense.

But what about people who are not politicians, who are not criminals, who are not enemies at war, who are not acting politically to establish a policy of the forcible violation of rights? What duty do you have to pass judgment upon the the foolish, the mistaken, the rude, the annoying, the disgusting, the vain, the gossipy? And further, what right do you have to demand that others pass judgments upon such people?

We have all had the misfortune of dealing with people whose behavior, while not criminal, is not ethical either. We have all dealt with the two-faced, with the liar, with the gossip, with the friend who backstabs and betrays. And I think it is also valid to say that we have in some ways seen such behavior in our own selves. In so far as a person's actions directly affect our own values, (by which I mean not our expressed moral values, but our actual physical and spiritual property,) we must pass judgment upon them. If a friend or a business colleague or a lover is apparently lying to us, then their actions fall within the direct circumstances of our happiness.

But what about the case where we observe such matters as third parties? Each of us has had a falling out with someone, and therefore wished not only to sever our own relations with the offender, but have also wished that our friends and acquaintances would do so also. Is it fair to demand that a third party pass judgment and take sides? If they do not do so, are they craven tolerationists?

The proper policy to hold towards a third party observer of a personal falling out between yourself and another person who is not threatening you with violence is to expect that person to understand that there is a conflict, and expect that person to take into account any relevant evidence based on current or future actions, and to act on that evidence when it becomes conclusive, but not to demand summary judgment, nor the taking of sides based on "loyalty," nor the acceptance of your accusations based upon faith. The proper application of Ayn Rand's dictum that there are no rational conflicts of interest between men requires that when there is a conflict, we allow men to use their own reason.

The third party has his own life. He has a full enough plate as it is without needing to interrupt his own pursuits to investigate another person's alleged non-violent wrongs against you. As frustrating as it may be to you, it is proper only to expect others to acknowledge a conflict, and to expect them to take into account the evidence as it emerges. Passing judgment requires knowledge, and possessing knowledge requires an effort. You have no right to demand that others go out of their way to take sides in an issue for which they have insufficient evidence to make a contextual judgment. And it is improper for you to attempt to manipulate the third party to do so.

In most such cases, if the conflict is serious, and the third party is sufficiently close to the situation, the truth will out. It may be frustrating to personally know the bad character of an enemy, yet see others treating him with the benefit of the doubt, if not respect. If your enemy continues actively lying, point it out, but otherwise show restraint. You earn respect and the benefit of the doubt for yourself when you respect a third party enough to let him make his mind up upon the evidence. And it is not your place to make the case against your enemy unbidden, and out of proportion to the third party's own real personal involvement. The inordinate need to convince somone that someone is evil is evil.

If a third party finds that making the effort to pass an informed judgment is worth his effort, he will ask us for the evidence. He will see the public vicious actions of the other without our help. And we should provide that evidence to him when he requests it as fairly and dispassionately as possible. We should recognize and be cautious of the strength of our own feelings. We need not overmake our case. We need not poison the well. We need not engage in rumor and insinuation to strengthen our case or a case we feel we might need to make in the future. Name calling and heckling and Schadenfreude on our part weakens our case. The proper stance on our side is proportion, and decency, and restraint. Our enemy, if he does not threaten us with force, has no hold over us beyond that which we grant him.

While all is fair in war, it only feels that way in love. As animals, personal conflicts with former friends strike us as just as compelling as conflicts with mortal enemies. But we are not animals. We can judge when the threat of violence is or is not involved in a conflict. Out of respect for ourselves we should not allow our feelings for our enemies to overwhelm us. Out of respect for our friends, we should let them form their own conclusions. Eventually, they will. And when they do, their judgment will be all the more strong in our favor, if we allow the facts, and not our accusations, to speak for themselves.

[Brant Gaede]

For Brant, and any others who do not understand the distinction, the threat to sue is not extortion precisely because it is the promise to resort to the law and its strictures to obtain justice, rather than to extra-legal means.

The analogy in criminal law to extortion is gangsterism, feud and vigilantism - precisely what anarchists offer as their alternative to the state.

I am not a lawyer, but I find the naive armchair legalizing among anarchists a source of unending amazement.

1) I'm not an anarchist.

2) It's not extortion if it's state sanctioned?

3) What extra-legal means that aren't legal? You've yet to establish extortion as such.

4) George and Wendy have seemingly accepted legal commonality so therefore they by definition go private.

5) I'm not saying Wendy might not have grounds for complaint of some sort against George for this fulminating thread nor do I know if she'll pursue same or if people really care regardless.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Remember: Wendy here plagiarized from articles I had PUBLISHED 12 years earlier. Those article are the ones available online to which I provided the link earlier.

Again, PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN MY NAME, AND IN MY NAME ONLY. No disputes about unpublished drafts and who really wrote what. This is classic plagiarism, so simple that even Ted might be able to understand.

Calm, down, housewife. I have not contested your underlying charges, about which I have not sufficient evidence to hold an opinion....

You are not even reading any of these parallel passages, are you? Line after line of material that Wendy plagiarized from my published articles, and you don't have "sufficient evidence to hold an opinion." But you seem have sufficient evidence for making comments about which you know zilch.

I'm not trying to cajole Wendy into anything. I wouldn't accept her apology now, even if she offered it. Nor will I accept any other kind of offer. Wendy McElroy is toast.

Ghs

Out of curiosity, George--she's toast because of Ted? Or the deadline has expired? Emotionally it reads because of Ted.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ted, your post 66 should have its own thread with a link from here.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

People who have no interest in this case aren't reading this thread except for fun. No fun for me. So, Ted, why ya here?

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

2) It's not extortion if it's state sanctioned?

"State sanctioned" is your anarchist mumbo jumbo. I use the same terms as Rand, government, rights and objective law.

Ted, your post 66 should have its own thread with a link from here.

No, it is relevant here.

People who have no interest in this case aren't reading this thread except for fun. No fun for me. So, Ted, why ya here?

The fact that you posted the comment refutes itself.

It does not surprise me that you do not note the distinction between interest in the legal sense and interest in the sense of gossip.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ted Keer

[Brant Gaede]

2) It's not extortion if it's state sanctioned?

"State sanctioned" is your anarchist mumbo jumbo. I use the same terms as Rand, rights and objective law.

Ted, your post 66 should have its own thread with a link from here.

No, it is relevant here.

People who have no interest in this case aren't reading this thread except for fun. No fun for me. So, Ted, why ya here?

The fact that you posted the comment refutes itself. It does not surprise me that you do not note the distinction between interest in the legal sense and interest in the sense of gossip.

You specialize in reading without comprehension.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

When is someone going to get the balls around here to say, "Yup, it sure looks like Wendy McElroy is a plagiarist, pure and simple."

I chimed in to that effect here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=120883

I know some you are now thinking, how could I be so insensitive as to reveal such personal information about my former girlfriend? This is crude and boorish.

Indeed, IMO, you’re crossing the line into TMI. Reference the noblesse oblige of the preux chevalier.

Does one bandy a woman's name?

Bertram Wilberforce Wooster, preux chevalier

I know you mean well, but most of the people on OL have NO conception of what Wendy and I were involved during our ten years together. From 1975 to 1981, we were major figures in the Hollywood "swinging" community. We went to only the best swing parties, specifically, The Gabor Mansion (aka "Tommy's) in Beverly Hills, which was called by Playboy, the classiest swing house in the U.S., and the A-Frame in the Hollywood Hills, which was in the same class.

We frequented private parties, especially one hosted by Rob and Syl, a married couple who were both members of the LAPD.

Now if you have never been around that culture, especially among the elite of the elite, you have no conception of what things were like. These houses admitted couples only, you had undergo several interviews, no drugs or booze, strict rules, such no "tickets" or joining in a group scene without getting the permission of all participants, etc. Moreover, if a guy violated one of these,patrolling bouncers would throw him out on his ear.

It was the fascinating peak of the sexual revolution, and Hollywood was the epicenter. For years I have wanted to write a book about this culture; it could make a fortune for me. But do you why I haven't?. Because I would need to talk about my female partner, and even if I don't use Wendy's name, every one in the libertarian movement would know it was Wendy. So I never pursued a book, I never permitted myself to write about my own experiences, out of my concern that it might do damage to Wendy.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg, so, please, reserve judgment until you learn the broader context. I am extremely sensitive about revealing information that might humiliate someone sexually. But I see no reason why I should not be able to discuss 10 years of my own life just because it might embarrass Wendy.

Now someone is thinking, But what does your life have to do with Wendy's hobby? Fine, if someone wants to know, I will tell them, and we can discuss Wendy's sexual preference in even more detail. Is that what you want?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Here is an excerpt from an email I wrote to a friend about doing a possible documentary interview with me about the Swing Culure of Hollywood during the sexual revolution. This was written in a humorous vein, and it gives you a sense of how causal and matter of fact all this was.

This is very graphic, so if that sort of thing offends you, then don't read it. THIS IS HOW WENDY AND I TALKED FOR TEN YEARS. Wendy was terrific about all this.

Just my deep involvement and analysis of Hollywood swinging

community from 1975-1981, during the height of that movement

at its U.S. epicenter, could fill 10 documentaries.

And I don't mean porno junk. I mean talking about the best

of the best places where all the beautiful people gathered

(especially the Gabor Mansion in Beverley Hills and the

A-Frame in the Hollywood Hills), where Wendy and I went every Friday or Saturday night (or

both) for six solid years. I mean talking about the very

matter of fact attitude that you develop. For example:

Wendy and I were in one of the "group rooms" at the Gabor

Mansion (there were around 20 rooms, each specialized) where

no clothing was allowed. We were with some old friends (whom

we used to call "obligatory fucks," because it was

considered bad manners not to have sex with them, rather like

refusing to shake hands) when a stunning blonde, who turned

out to be a professional model, approached Wendy and said,

"Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt your conversation, but my

boyfriend likes to watch me suck cock. Would you mind if I

gave your boyfriend a blowjob?."

Wendy casually says, "No, that's fine."

Then the woman of any man's dreams looks at me and says, "Is

that okay with you?"

"Uh, sure."

Like I was going to say, "I wish I could help you out, but

I'm not into blowjobs given by gorgeous blondes with

incredible breasts and a heart-shaped butt that men would

kill for. I don't like being used as a sex object."

So I get a truly spectacular blowjob that lasts 15 minutes

and ends in a cum-dripping -from-the-mouth-rub-it

on-her-face ... well, you get the picture. Then she said,

very sweetly: "Thank you so much. That was a lot of fun."

Then she and her boyfriend both shook my hand, as we

introduced ourselves: "High, I'm Tanna, and this is my

boyfriend Mark....Have you ever been here before... etc.,

etc.

This is absolutely true, and there are zillion stories like

this that could be hysterically funny if approached in the

right way, i.e., very blunt and matter of fact.

I wrote a number of articles during those years (under

"Camille St. George") on topics such as "Tickets," "The

Etiquette of Orgies," "Newbies and Veterans," "How to Watch

Out for Each Other," and so forth. These were all serious

articles. This was an an entire underground culture, highly

sophisticated and refined with its own rules and values and

moral principles, some of which very strict (e.g., no drugs

or booze). It is also a dead culture (killed mainly by AIDs)

that will never return. Most of the swing houses now are

cesspools of fat and horny morons. In my era, however, you

met professional writers, teachers (very common), actors

(very common) dancers, psychologists, and even cops. Indeed,

one couple that Wendy and I really liked -- we knew them for

years -- were in the LA police academy when first met them

and soon became members of the LAPD. They were Rob and Syl.

Couples were always identified as a unit, with the man's

name first -- George and Wendy, Mark and Kathy, etc.

After Wendy and I split up, Annie really wanted to go to a

swing party. I hadn't been to one in years, but I knew where

to look. I located "Tommy" (who used to manage the Gabor

Mansion but who was now in Orange County, near Disneyland)

and gave him call.

"Hello, this Tommy."

"Hey, Tommy. This is George and Wendy. Remember me?"

"Hey, George and Wendy! How have you been? I haven't heard

from you in years!"

"Fine, but I am no longer George and Wendy. I am now George

and Annie...." etc. This would all be said in a perfectly

natural way.

.

[Mikee]

Here is an excerpt from an email I wrote to a friend about doing a possible documentary interview with me about the Swing Culure of Hollywood during the sexual revolution. This was written in a humorous vein, and it gives you a sense of how causal and matter of fact all this was.

This is very graphic, so if that sort of thing offends you, then don't read it. THIS IS HOW WENDY AND I TALKED FOR TEN YEARS. Wendy was terrific about all this.

Just my deep involvement and analysis of Hollywood swinging

community from 1975-1981, during the height of that movement

at its U.S. epicenter, could fill 10 documentaries.

And I don't mean porno junk. I mean talking about the best

of the best places where all the beautiful people gathered

(especially the Gabor Mansion in Beverley Hills and the

A-Frame in the Hollywood Hills), where Wendy and I went every Friday or Saturday night (or

both) for six solid years. I mean talking about the very

matter of fact attitude that you develop. For example:

Wendy and I were in one of the "group rooms" at the Gabor

Mansion (there were around 20 rooms, each specialized) where

no clothing was allowed. We were with some old friends (whom

we used to call "obligatory fucks," because it was

considered bad manners not to have sex with them, rather like

refusing to shake hands) when a stunning blonde, who turned

out to be a professional model, approached Wendy and said,

"Excuse me. I'm sorry to interrupt your conversation, but my

boyfriend likes to watch me suck cock. Would you mind if I

gave your boyfriend a blowjob?."

Wendy casually says, "No, that's fine."

Then the woman of any man's dreams looks at me and says, "Is

that okay with you?"

"Uh, sure."

Like I was going to say, "I wish I could help you out, but

I'm not into blowjobs given by gorgeous blondes with

incredible breasts and a heart-shaped butt that men would

kill for. I don't like being used as a sex object."

So I get a truly spectacular blowjob that lasts 15 minutes

and ends in a cum-dripping -from-the-mouth-rub-it

on-her-face ... well, you get the picture. Then she said,

very sweetly: "Thank you so much. That was a lot of fun."

Then she and her boyfriend both shook my hand, as we

introduced ourselves: "High, I'm Tanna, and this is my

boyfriend Mark....Have you ever been here before... etc.,

etc.

This is absolutely true, and there are zillion stories like

this that could be hysterically funny if approached in the

right way, i.e., very blunt and matter of fact.

I wrote a number of articles during those years (under

"Camille St. George") on topics such as "Tickets," "The

Etiquette of Orgies," "Newbies and Veterans," "How to Watch

Out for Each Other," and so forth. These were all serious

articles. This was an an entire underground culture, highly

sophisticated and refined with its own rules and values and

moral principles, some of which very strict (e.g., no drugs

or booze). It is also a dead culture (killed mainly by AIDs)

that will never return. Most of the swing houses now are

cesspools of fat and horny morons. In my era, however, you

met professional writers, teachers (very common), actors

(very common) dancers, psychologists, and even cops. Indeed,

one couple that Wendy and I really liked -- we knew them for

years -- were in the LA police academy when first met them

and soon became members of the LAPD. They were Rob and Syl.

Couples were always identified as a unit, with the man's

name first -- George and Wendy, Mark and Kathy, etc.

After Wendy and I split up, Annie really wanted to go to a

swing party. I hadn't been to one in years, but I knew where

to look. I located "Tommy" (who used to manage the Gabor

Mansion but who was now in Orange County, near Disneyland)

and gave him call.

"Hello, this Tommy."

"Hey, Tommy. This is George and Wendy. Remember me?"

"Hey, George and Wendy! How have you been? I haven't heard

from you in years!"

"Fine, but I am no longer George and Wendy. I am now George

and Annie...." etc. This would all be said in a perfectly

natural way.

.

Pardon me for asking, but why do you think revelations like this one will be devastating to Wendy's reputation but harmless to yours?